JUDGMENTBY: THOMSON CJ, BARAKBAH JA AND NEAL J

THOMSON CJ (delivering oral judgment): The respondent to this appeal was injured as a result of a collision between a motor-cycle which he was riding and a motor-car driven by the appellant and he sued for damages in negligence.

The trial Judge found negligence on the part of the appellant and awarded $ 268.52 special damages and $ 15,000 general damages.

Against that judgment the appellant has now appealed on the question of liability and on the question of quantum of general damages. I think, however, I am right in saying there is no complaint as to the special damages.

On the question of liability I would dismiss the appeal. On this I find it unnecessary to say more than that I agree with what has been said by the learned trial Judge and it is not necessary to repeat that here.

With regard to the question of general damages, the matter is by no means free from difficulty. As I said a few moments ago on the one hand there is much to be said for some sort of standardization of damages; on the other hand the authorities place considerable limits on our powers to deal with an actual award.

In the present case the physical results of what happened were thus described by a medical witness who saw and examined the respondent about three months after the accident:

"he complained of a limp and weakness of the right leg. I found that he

had a 1" shortening of the right leg and also deformity at the fracture

side. There is anterior bowing of the right lower leg. This caused the

inch shortening. The knee and ankle movements are full and I find that

the lateral ligament of the right knee is lax. The knee is not as firm

as it should be giving a feeling of instability. The fracture of the

forearm has united and there is slight limitation of formation and

supination but function is good. He will be able to walk a shorter

distance than before. He would have an ache in his leg if he walks too

far. He can play badminton but not as well as before."

The only other facts that are relevant are that the respondent is 40 years of age, he is employed as a switch-board attendant by the Central Electricity Board and his employment and earning capacity have apparently not been affected in any way. Moreover he is still able to play the game of badminton at which he is proficient but not with the same vigour and success as before the accident.

His loss can, therefore, be comprised under the heads of pain and suffering and life-long disability not in any way involving invalidism and not in any way affecting earning power but to some extent affecting amenity and the enjoyment of living.

Applying my mind to these facts and given the matter my best attention (and I can do no more) my view is that a suitable sum by way of compensation would be $ 8,500. It is unnecessary to recapitulate the relevant authorities which have been quoted again and again in this Court. In my view that difference between $ 8,500 and the amount of $ 1.5,000 awarded by the trial Judge is sufficient to justify this Court in interfering.

The result, therefore, is that as regards liability I would dismiss the appeal. As regards damages I would allow it to the extent of reducing the amount of the general damages from $ 15,000 to$ 8,500.

BARAKBAH JA AND NEAL J concurred.

Order accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document